Final Report Project: Strengthen democracy and rule of law by empowering citizens and Civil Society through participatory processes in governance (Municipalities of Korce, Elbasan and Devoll). Table of Contents 1. Introduction ……………………………………………. Page 3 2. Methodology …………………………………………... Page 4 3. Municipality of Korce ......……………………………... Page 9 4. Municipality of Devoll ……………………………….... Page 49 5. Municipality of Elbasan .………………………………. Page 82 6. Conclusions ......………………………………………... Page 125 1. Introduction The present report is written in the framework of the project “Strengthen democracy and rule of law by empowering citizens and Civil Society through participatory processes in governance (municipalities of Korce, Elbasan and Devoll)” and other data obtained during its implementation. Information and variables as presented based on a specific and coherent methodology are analyzed on two study levels: a. Data obtained during the questionnaire process performed in the first three months of 2017, along with their systematic analysis; b. Comparative data with “the Study Report” presented during 2015 for identifying the problems’ levels, whether they are solved or are worse than before, and the effects of the 2017 elections on these variables, etc. Considering this, the questionnaire process performed during the first three months of 2017 coincides with the questionnaire process performed in 2015 in methodology, questions and demographic distribution. Similarly, the analysis process and the data instruments in both cases are convergent, in order to incorporate more effectively the corresponding comparison. The final report is divided into three sections: study for the Municipality of Korca, study for the Municipality of Devoll and study for the Municipality of Elbasan. Each of these sections is composed of two subcategories: data study related to the towns and data study related to other administrative units. Comparative orientation will be in focus however, not only for reporting the data obtained during the first trimester of 2017, but their comparison to the data from 2015. Before starting with the triple analysis, we’ll analyze the methodology of the study that is unchanged since the report of 2015. This analysis is made through a formula with mixed comparison with a coefficient. Explanations for using such comparison will be given along the following methodological session. 2. Methodology i. Presentation Along with the methodological presentation, let us go on with the proceedings in location for the entire questionnaire stage for municipalities of Korce, Devoll and Elbasan. Tables 1, 2 and 3 illustrate in a summarized way the existing population report (Census 2011) for each municipality and commune, by attaching the number of villages for each. In the last column is displayed the exact number of questionnaires for each municipality/commune. The following methodological analysis will explain the focus during the questionnaire stage and the factual procedure in dividing the questionnaires from one unit to another. DEVOLL (table 1) Municipality/Commune Nr. of population Nr. of villages Number of questionnaires Bilisht 10.180 - 47 Miras 10.697 14 48 Progër 6.152 8 47 Hoçisht 7.398 8 47 Qendër Bilisht 9.101 10 47 KORCE (table 2) Municipality/Commune Nr. of population Nr. of villages Number of questionnaires Drenovë 5581 9 51 Korçë 51152 - 74 Bulgarec 9022 13 54 Lekas 392 12 53 Mollaj 3438 5 48 Vithkuq 1519 13 54 Voskop 3832 7 50 Voskopojë 1058 5 48 ELBASAN (table 3) Municipality/Commune Nr. of population Nr. of villages Number of questionnaires Elbasan 79,703 - 109 Bradashesh 10,700 17 54 Funarë 2,122 9 50 Gjergjan 5,126 7 69 Gjinar 3,478 11 71 Gracen 2,192 9 50 Labinot-Fushë 7,058 6 68 Labinot-Mal 5,291 10 71 Papër 6,348 13 52 Shirgjan 7,307 7 49 Shushicë 8,731 9 50 Tregan 3,036 12 52 Zavalinë 1,622 6 48 ii. Three comparisons The focus of the methodological analysis lies on the inherent distribution of questionnaires and the whole interviewing process in general. The objective of the interviewing campaign is a better and all inclusive representation of the people’s voices in each municipality, administrative unit and village. In order to do this, there are three possible comparisons, which will be analyzed through an integrated exclusion: homogenous comparison, proportional comparison and mixed comparison with a coefficient. Furthermore each comparison will be brought along with pros and cons. A. Homogenous comparison: based on it, the Municipality has a specific and predetermined number of questionnaires. These questionnaires are distributed equally for each administrative unit. After such homogenous distribution, an equal sub-division is made within each unit based on the number of villages. Anyways, we think that the comparison in this case is inefficient and badly represented, bringing with it the incorrect representation of people in each inhabiting area. First, we cannot have the same representation as in a municipality with 51.152 inhabitants like Korca with a commune with 9022 inhabitants like Bulgarec. If we would decide about a homogenous basis of 20 questionnaires for each municipal unit (160 questionnaires in total for Korca) we would be able to represent only 0.04% of the inhabitants in Korca and 0.22% for Bulgarec. Besides the fact that representation would be almost inconsiderable as to make a tendency, it would be inconsistent. Therefore the study would focus its energies and human resources differently for each area. Margin of error would be huge. B. Simple proportional comparison: Based on this comparison, the distribution of questionnaires would be made based on exact concentration number of inhabitants for each unit in proportion with the total inhabitants in the entire municipality. Similarly, since 67% of inhabitants in the Municipality of Korca live in the administrative unit of Korca, and whatever the number of questionnaires, it would be concentrated on this administrative unit at 67%. In given conditions, there would be first a logistic problem: there would be needed a large number of questionnaires to represent a unit with 392 inhabitants like Lekas. There would be needed for example, 130 questionnaires distributed in Korca for each questionnaire distributed for Lekas. The other problem related to such bad representation caused by simple proportional comparison is the bad representation within administrative units, thus, villages. Administrative unit of Lekas is made of 12 villages. The minimal non-representation of 1 questionnaire per village would require about 1566 questionnaires only in Korca, without the other administrative units. This would create again an equality of representation: in some administrative units the margin of error would be very low and very high in others. Therefore, such methodological comparison is useless for the above. C. Mixed comparison with a coefficient: this is the comparison we used in order to reach a better representation of all areas. Based on mixed comparison with a coefficient, we have a representative comparison for the town. Mixed comparison for the communes: First step is to determine a fixed number of 45 questionnaires (A) for each administrative unit (the constant). The second step is the distribution of bonus questionnaires for each administrative unit. This distribution of bonus questionnaires (Bn) is made based on the number of villages (fn) for each administrative unit. Number of villages for each unit is multiplied by the coefficient (k%) that is the percentage of inhabitants who live in town. Similarly, since 67% of inhabitants in the Municipality of Korca live in town, k% is equal to 0.67, whereas in Municipality of Bilisht, where 23% of inhabitants live in town, k% = 0.23. The total number of questionnaires will be written (Tk). (1) Tk = A+Bn (2) Bn = fn*k% (3) Tk = A+n*K% This mixed comparison for the communes is made to increase the number of questionnaires interactively and dynamically, by compensating the demographic gap between communes and the municipality, in the same time with the heterogeneity of communes between them in proportion to the included villages. Mixed comparison for the town: In order to estimate the bonuses (on the standard number A of 45 questionnaires) for the main administrative unit for each municipality (Tb), we add the total number of villages for the entire municipality and multiply it with the coefficient k%. (4) Tb = f*K% (5) f = f1 + f2 + f3 +…+ fn The results displayed on Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 are illustrative of the results and application of formulas of mixed representation with a coefficient. There is a total of 432 questionnaires for the Municipality of Korca, with an equal focus and a minimized margin of error, 236 questionnaires for the Municipality of Devoll and 793 questionnaires for the Municipality of Elbasan. There is a total of 1.461 questionnaires for all three areas. Municipality Total of questionnaires per Municipality Korce 432 Devoll 236 Elbasan 793 iii. Comparison The main reason for performing the interviewing during the first three months of 2017 is the comparison with the data obtained in 2015. During this year, all identified problems and their level were presented to the respective communities, whether inhabitants or local staff. The interviewing process for 2017 serves as a means to identify the level of improvement or aggravation of the situation in the respective municipalities, their specific administrative units, towns and so on. The statistics obtained during these two surveys are easily comparable since they are based on the same methodology, the same questionnaire, the same way of generating data and the same analyzing objectives. 3. Municipality of Korca As shown in the Survey Report of 2015, each municipality should have a special analysis of the data obtained from the towns and those obtained from the other administrative units. Since the conditions, context, demographic distribution and other similar variables in towns change greatly from the other administrative units, the comparison between two categories would be irrelevant and incoherent.